Whoa: Army slashes 8,700 jobs as budget cuts kick in

posted at 7:00 pm on December 9, 2011 by Tina Korbe

First, these aren’t the cuts triggered by the Super Committee failure. They’re cuts to meet funded targets established by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and President Obama’s budget. Still, this isn’t good news. If DOD has to eliminate 8,700 civilian jobs just to meet pre-Super-Committee cuts, what will the Department have to eliminate when the Super Committee cuts take effect?

The Army said Thursday it is moving forward with plans announced in July to cut about 8,700 positions, using a mix of early retirement offers, buyouts and attrition to trim the jobs by the end of the fiscal year in late September. …

The cuts will come in 37 states at 70 different locations across eight commands and agencies with nearly 90 percent of the cuts taking place within the Installation Management Command, Army Materiel Command and the Training and Doctrine Command. Most of the cuts are likely to occur in Virginia and Texas, where most of the DOD’s civilian workers are located. …

The failure of the bipartisan debt supercommittee means the Pentagon budget could be cut by a total of $1 trillion over the next decade — what defense leaders warn is a “huge” cut that would amount to a 23 percent reduction in the defense budget, resulting in furloughs and layoffs of “many” civilians and a reduction in the size of the military. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has warned that the cuts could be “devastating” for the Pentagon, creating a “substantial risk” that the country’s defense needs might not be met.

As always, I marvel at the manifold, ridiculous ways in which this administration — and, yes, a cooperative Congress both pre-2010 and post-2010 — is willing to deepen the deficit at the same time that it refuses to ensure adequate defense funds. Sure, let’s cut waste in the Department of Defense — but, then, let’s reinvest in modernization.

Meantime, at the very least, if politicians aren’t going to really have the backs of our men and women in uniform, they could at least stop using gimmicky “war savings” to fund other deficit-deepening measures. Sometimes, it seems to me the only real cuts the government is capable of making are to defense. We’re through the looking glass …

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

I still think it’s ridiculous that we’re cutting from the DOD. When a family is trying to stay within their monthly budget, they start at the bottom– stop eating out, things like that. They don’t start by not paying their bills! You start at the bottom and work your way up. The DOD is at the top for us. Even more ridiculous is the fact that Obummer has vowed to veto any attempts to stop the cuts from happening. As someone in the next generation, I’m totally disappointed in the direction we’re headed in.

It’s a little short-sighted of people to say that since the across-the-board cuts don’t kick in until January, that there will be a political “fix” before then to stop that from happening. My pops runs an engineering firm that employs a couple thousand people, and their hiring decisions now are dictated by anticipated funding from defense contracts past January.

While by no means am I in favor of cuts that would leave us vulnerable to attack, as a conservative I’ve got to say, what’s the big deal? This shrinks gov’t, it’s a rational action in the current economic climate to shrink gov’t. If we can’t afford it, and lord knows we can’t, why should we continue to pay for it? Now preferably I’d like to stop homeland security from paying for snow cone machines in Michigan (see last night’s colbert) first, but come on, are we as conservatives really going to say no cuts anytime any where so long as they are defense related?

Obama only likes government jobs when they are UNION government jobs. The military troops don’t pay SEIU/AFG/AFL-CIO and their ilk. Protecting our shores just isn’t as important as contributing to DNC coffers I guess.

While it’s ridiculous that we are cutting into the military over, say, NPR, they frankly got as bloated and inefficient as any other govt. organization. Let them learn some lessons in efficiency too, it will be good for all of us.

I’ve got to say, what’s the big deal? This shrinks gov’t, it’s a rational action in the current economic climate to shrink gov’t… but come on, are we as conservatives really going to say no cuts anytime any where so long as they are defense related?

schmitty on December 9, 2011 at 7:10 PM

Quick, besides the census and postal service/roads, name two other spendy things required by Constitution.

Quick, besides the census and postal service/roads, name two other spendy things required by Constitution.

rogerb on December 9, 2011 at 7:22 PM

The Constitution required that those 8,700 Army jobs are needed to maintain an adequate national defense? News to me.

If you’re in favor in increased DoD spending because it’s somehow found in the Constitution, then I assume you are also in favor of increased postal service/roads spending because that’s also somehow found in the Constitution, right?

BLACKSBURG, Va. – Virginia State Police have identified a Spotsylvania County man as the
subject responsible for the murder-suicide that occurred Thursday (Dec. 8, 2011) on the
Virginia Tech campus. Investigators have confirmed that Ross Truett Ashley, 22, of Partlow,
Va., took his own life approximately a half-hour after fatally shooting a Virginia Tech Police
Officer. Ashley also had a local residence in the 1000 block of East Main Street in Radford, Va.
(More…..)

It a start or is the tea party really dead and always just hatred of Obama with no care how big government is as long as the right side controls it….

Down size the government you have to start at the biggest place. More Admiral than ships almost more Generals than rifles. Close the EPA, Education and Energy but don’t you dare touch the DoD. Not one bureaucrat that is employed in the DoD should go. Yeah that will save us from debt and reduce the size of government. This is why Penatta is Sec Def. To cut as much as they can when no one is looking but it will be the evil GOP who want veterans benefits cut when people are looking.

Put up a sign under new management and do not know what this button does do don’t tempts us to push it. You will not like what happens to next.

SEOUL – The U.S. military’s apparent plan to lay off more than 400 Koreans employed on American bases in South Korea prompted protests outside at least two installations Friday.

“We’re like gum – they chew us up and then spit us out,” said Kim Chu Il, president of the Uijeongbu branch office of the U.S. Forces Korea Korean Employees Union. “Overnight, they have decided to take away the jobs of people who have worked (for USFK) for the past 10 or 20 years.

Can someone explain exactly how these initial cuts are dangerous? I’m gad to see the cuts – we need to CUT SPENDING. This just goes to show you how the mainstream war mongering GOP is not interested in cutting spending. They want “LOW TAXES and MODERATELY HIGH SPENDING” which just encourages higher deficits. Not much better than Democrats. Same ole’ crap, different year.

Without knowing exactly what the cut jobs are, it’s hard to say what the impact is, but military cuts are almost never cuts of wast, just cuts of capability. The wast is always too protected by some congressman or other.

Plans announced are seldom the reality. I suspect the Army, which is ripe for downsizing, made this gesture to prepare for the real downsizing wars. They will constantly reference this 8,700 “cut” in civilian personnel as why they should not have to contribute more when the real cuts are being discussed. The fact of the matter is that the Army and Marines were plussed up for combat operations. They are the targets of downsizing.

The Army is placing the bet (realistically) that suggesting that civil servants’ jobs are at risk will result in legislative action.
It will probaly work. Margins are tight in the 2012 election. No member of congress is going to vote for slashing jobs in the Army.

Can someone explain exactly how these initial cuts are dangerous? I’m gad to see the cuts – we need to CUT SPENDING. This just goes to show you how the mainstream war mongering GOP is not interested in cutting spending. They want “LOW TAXES and MODERATELY HIGH SPENDING” which just encourages higher deficits. Not much better than Democrats. Same ole’ crap, different year.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 9, 2011 at 7:43 PM

As a fiscal conservative, I’m with you in sentiment, if not in exact wording. Why is DoD such a sacred cow that we can’t cut back? If conservatives are serious about spending cuts it has to happen throughout the entire government and it should hurt a little for everyone as well.

Let’s be realistic and let other nations in the world start providing for their own defense instead of making you and me foot the bill.

Bring all our soilders home from places that pose no threat to us. We dont need to nation build. We dont need fully staffed military bases on other countries soils where we operate outside of their own laws. Think about how much money (and jobs) that would save us here at home.

Bring all our soilders home from places that pose no threat to us. We dont need to nation build. We dont need fully staffed military bases on other countries soils where we operate outside of their own laws. Think about how much money (and jobs) that would save us here at home.

Politricks on December 9, 2011 at 8:27 PM

Yes savings up to the point when we get another terrorist attack on our soil. Not sure if you see the big picture.

Some weapons too important to lose in DOD cuts
Published: December 6, 2011
*****************************

It’s cloudy and almost dark when your cockpit display shows the president has given final approval for the carefully planned strike on the rogue mobile missile launchers. They told you before you catapulted from the aircraft carrier deck in your F-35C that the weather would suck. Can your bombs still hit the target precisely enough to knock it out, without causing collateral damage?

Fast forward to that cloudy night mission. Aren’t you glad the SDB II did not get delayed back during the budget battles of 2012?

Advanced weaponry can cut down on American casualties and save lives.
(More………..)
====================

My brother in law, a chief petty officer who has served in the US Navy as an aircraft mechanic for fourteen years was just told that he would be laid off in six months, conveniently right after his fourth tour of duty at sea. He was intending to stay in the military right on through to retirement. Despite being a superb mechanic, the Navy is getting rid of him to avoid paying a pension. This is how the Obama Administration treats our soldiers. I expect this from a private corporation, not from our government toward men and women who have put their LIVES at stake in order to defend us. So much for cuts…

Skandia Recluse: Ah, good point! That means we have plenty of time to make dang sure that the number of gubmint jobs cut by the first Tuesday in November 2012 will not be 8,700, but 8701. (Actually, 8,702 if Biden counted for anything.)

“We’re like gum – they chew us up and then spit us out,” said Kim Chu Il, [yes, that's his real name] president of the Uijeongbu branch office of the U.S. Forces Korea Korean Employees Union. “Overnight, they have decided to take away the jobs of people who have worked (for USFK) for the past 10 or 20 years.

So did this piece of Korean gum get his education from an American university, or do all union employees everywhere feel this superior sense of entitlement?

Dude got a paycheck from the union dues of the people getting paychecks for at least a decade from the US Military. How long is he entitled to his free ride at American taxpayers’ expense?

(Please don’t preach to me about the cost savings attained by using foreign nationals. I understand it. But the sense of entitlement is ridiculous. If we pulled out of Korea the country would unify within months–the wrong way.)

This will not amount to any savings, as miniscule as this one particular move is. The money will just be spent somewhere else by Obama.

If we are going to get our spending under control, everything is going to have to take a hit.

Besides, GW Bush did almost the same thing in 1992 right after Desert Storm, except it was career minded active duty members who were targeted for separation. And that’s going to happen again, it’s already started in the Air Force.

In what sense do people think there are not 8,700 people working for the DoD who are not worth what they cost?

Aquateen Hungerforce on December 9, 2011 at 11:01 PM

I can think of two easily.

The “Family Service Center”, that once they get their claws into a family, continue to justify their employment by twisting that family into knots when all they asked for was maritial counsel since they were young and arguing too much. What the active duty service member got, was reports back to his chain of command about what a poor Marine he was, when I knew he was a solid Marine.

Base EPA personnel. Who came to my workspace to run a “sniffer” test to determine the amount of airborne asbestos when changing the brakes on a Light Armored Vehicle. Their report came back with a bunch of new procedures about how we had to handle materials associated with that brake job due to all the “airborne asbestos” (I’ll spare you the details, but it made the job take 3 times longer than before). When I sent a email to my unit EPA representaive, disputing the report, since LAV brakes had no asbestos in them at all, I set off a fire storm that ended with me having to speak to the unit’s logistic’s officer and explain why I would send out such an email…. that was so factual.

If you Google “Carter Defense Cuts”, you will find some lefty opinions that President Carter was actually a wild spending hawk. He actually started the hostility to the Soviets which President Reagan continued in a more lame manner. That is what they claim..they usually miss supplying any figures.

Meantime, at the very least, if politicians aren’t going to really have the backs of our men and women in uniform

This is a defamatory, and silly, thing to say if all it amounts to is this -

The Army said Thursday it is moving forward with plans announced in July to cut about 8,700 positions, using a mix of early retirement offers, buyouts and attrition to trim the jobs by the end of the fiscal year in late September. …

Oh my god, the Army is losing .7% of their manpower, the end is nigh! Oh wait, these are (excessively) highly paid “civilian” jobs, that lack ANY component of risk? Well in that case…

Daikokuco on December 10, 2011 at 12:18 AM

Probably a bunch of janitors and really non-essential jobs I’d say. Who knows. The military is prone to waste like every federal department, but I’d say that the military is the most organized and honest.

A friend of a friend works as a civilian employee for your US DoD. He’s a pretty smart guy, but he works maybe 1 hour a day, the rest of the 7 hours he reads news online and other F-all things, and gets paid a pretty coin for this.

Every huge bureaucracy, including the Defense establishment, has fat that wouldn’t hurt to trim. It’s really silly to characterize the cutting of 8,700 office workers as a big deal. Recently there was an interview with Mike Mullen, the former top general of the US military, and he said he’s in charge of 2,200,000 people. What tha heck is 8,700 out of 2.2 million? That’s something like 0.39% of the workforce.

Stop hyperventilating and calm down. You’re all for smaller, leaner government and against big bureaucracies, right? So you should like this.

In what sense do people think there are not 8,700 people working for the DoD who are not worth what they cost?

Aquateen Hungerforce on December 9, 2011 at 11:01 PM

Somewhere over the rainbow way up high
There’s a land that I heard of once in a lullaby
The piles of paper of the bureaucrats so piled high in the DC sky
Are also on the backs of yet unborn children who will be by and by
Bureaucrats shaking their heads, saying, “I don’t even know what I do”
What they’re really saying is, “I…I love taxpayer money too”

Well the Air Force can start by firing all the hundreds of civilian fitness monitors they hired to give PT tests. Go back to a crazy idea of actually having units give the tests themselves. If anyone goes to any military base, stateside or overseas, you will see how half of the civilian jobs are not mission essential and the military used to function just fine without them. Cuts to new equipment, R&D, and training budgets are what is going to hurt the military, not the firing of some civilians who get paid twice as much as the junior enlisted guy next to him doing the same job.

In business our objective is to fill, or create jobs that benefit our growth and contribute to our bottom line, otherwise we’re cooked.
Cut ALL government jobs (including military). Too many government jobs are displays of inefficiency, redundancy and add substantially to our tax burden. Remember we’re not just paying their salaries, we’re paying for their retirement.

“If it moves they tax it.
If it keeps moving they regulate it.
If it stops moving they subsidize it.” RR

are we as conservatives really going to say no cuts anytime any where so long as they are defense related?

ENOUGH WITH THE SACRED COW BS. The military is currently the ONLY thing getting cut, Capice? It is always the first and the last thing to get cut, and it is currently the ONLY thing that BOTH parties agree to cut. When I start seeing cuts to OTHER programs as well, then I will agree with you!

I think most people would be willing to accept cuts in civilian personnel with in the Military if it was applied across the entire Federal Gov’t.
But the thing is, its always the DoD that gets cut. Everything else is sacred…

This isn’t even the beginning. Sometime after Sept 11, 2001 the military bases in the United States replaced soldiers who were guarding the entrances to the bases with contracted civilian guards. I learned from a friend that theses civilian guards are being replaced by soldiers again – as a cost cutting measure.
These civil service cuts are the mere tip of the ice berg – one estimate I read suggests cuts to the civilian DoD workforce of up to 45%.

The Constitution required that those 8,700 Army jobs are needed to maintain an adequate national defense? News to me.

If you’re in favor in increased DoD spending because it’s somehow found in the Constitution, then I assume you are also in favor of increased postal service/roads spending because that’s also somehow found in the Constitution, right?

Lord on December 9, 2011 at 7:28 PM

Straw men. I’m saying that the things that AREN’T mentioned specifically in the Constitution should be under the knife before those that are.

Will these 8700 affect much? Probably not, but that’s not the point. The point is the trap. See above.

Here’s a start- There are over 2 million (with an “M”) federal civilian employees, and an untold number of contractors. Watch closely here:

If you’re not required to come in on snow days you’re moved to part time, no benefits.

Finally a step (a very small step) in the right direction. The DoD has thousands of GS employees who don’t do anything for the warfighter. They could probably cut their civilian work force in half and no one would notice.